HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Zimaduri v Fair Trade Co Ltd 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	9 February 2026	
		
Parties: 	Annette Zimaduri & Ellfison Lamana v Fair Trade Company Limited, Attorney General 	
		
Date of hearing: 	9 February 2026	
		
Court file number(s): 	445 of 2025	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Nott; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:		
	1.	The Applicants’ urgent interlocutory application for injunctive relief is refused.
2.	No interim injunction is granted restraining the First Respondent’s activities under Felling Licence A102209.
3.	The status quo created by the existing orders and arrangements arising from Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 is to remain undisturbed pending further order of the Court.
4.	Costs of the interlocutory application are in the cause.	
Representation: 	Mr J Duddley for the Claimants 
Mr B Kaehuna for the First Defendant 
No Appearance for the Second Defendant 	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, Castlemaine Tooheys ltd v south Australia [1986] 161 Clr 148, Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 130	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 445 of 2025

BETWEEN:

ANNETTE ZIMADURI & ELLFISON LAMANA 
(Representing Voda descendant)
Claimants

AND:

FAIR TRADE COMPANY LIMITED
(Licensee)
First Defendant

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERALD
(Representing the Commissioner of Forests)
Second Defendant

Date of Hearing: 9 February 2026
Date of Ruling: 9 February 2026

Counsel

Mr J Duddley for the Claimants 
Mr B Kaehuna for the First Defendant 
No Appearance for the Second Defendant

Nott; PJ
RULING
Procedural Background
1. 	The Applicants bring an urgent interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief in Civil Case No. 445 of 2025. The proceeding is framed as a claim for judicial review arising out of decisions connected to timber rights, customary land appeals and the grant of Felling Licence A102209.
2. 	The Applicants are representatives of Voda descendants and assert interests in relevant customary lands. The First Respondent is Fairtrade Company Limited, the holder of the relevant felling licence, and the Second Respondent is the Attorney-General representing the Commissioner of Forest. The Attorney General was not present today.
3. 	The interlocutory application arises against a complex procedural background involving earlier proceedings, including High Court Civil Appeal Case No. 391 of 2023. In that matter, certain parties entered into a Deed of Settlement and a Consent Judgment which was perfected by the Court. The consent orders recorded, among other matters, acknowledgment of ownership and the execution of a logging agreement. 
4. 	The Applicants now contend, in substance, that the Deed of Settlement and Consent Judgment in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 were improperly procured or are legally ineffective and that the felling licence granted thereafter is unlawful. The present proceeding seeks, among other relief, orders setting aside or declaring void aspects of that earlier outcome. 
5. 	Pending determination of the substantive claim, the Applicants seek urgent injunctive relief restraining logging activities and requiring removal of machinery from the disputed lands. 
Facts
6. 	The Applicants assert that they are customary landowners and objectors in earlier timber rights hearings conducted in Isabel Province. They say that the First Respondent holds a felling licence covering lands which fall within their customary ownership.
7. 	The Applicants allege that following the death of a party in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023, a further defence was filed by new legal representatives which contradicted earlier pleadings and enabled the execution of a Deed of Settlement and Consent Judgment. They contend that those steps occurred without participation of all parties to the earlier proceeding and therefore lack legal effect.
8. 	On that basis, the Applicants say that the grant of Felling Licence A102209 by the Commissioner of Forest was unlawful and that continued logging activities will cause irreversible harm to their customary land and interests.
9. 	The Respondents, by contrast, rely upon the existing consent judgment and associated arrangements recognising timber rights and providing for the execution of a logging agreement, and submit that logging activities are carried out pursuant to those arrangements.
10. 	The Court notes that the earlier consent orders expressly recorded the resolution of claims and objections between certain parties and contemplated the continuation of logging activities in accordance with a settlement framework. 
Law
11. 	The governing principles are those articulated in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, as consistently applied in this jurisdiction. The Court must consider:
a.	Whether there is a serious question to be tried: The applicant must show that the claim is neither frivolous nor vexatious and that there is a real question to be tried, without the Court undertaking any assessment of the likely outcome at trial (American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 at 407–409).
b.	Whether damages would be an adequate remedy: The Court must consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant if interim relief were refused and the applicant later succeeded at trial, recognising that where loss is difficult to quantify or rights are non-commercial, damages may be inadequate (American Cyanamid at 408; Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 at 153).
c.	Where the balance of convenience lies: Where damages are not an adequate remedy, the Court weighs the relative inconvenience or prejudice that granting or refusing the injunction would occasion to each party (American Cyanamid at 408–409).
d.	The overall justice of the case: The discretion to grant interlocutory relief is ultimately informed by the justice of the case as a whole, including the preservation of the status quo and the avoidance of irreversible prejudice pending trial (American Cyanamid at 409; Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 130).
12. 	The principles in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 must be applied with attention to the nature of the particular interim relief sought, rather than in the abstract. Although the threshold requirement of a serious question to be tried is common to all forms of interlocutory relief, the assessment of adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience necessarily differs according to whether the Court is asked to restrain conduct, freeze assets, or make ancillary enforcement orders.
Applicants’ submissions
13. 	The Applicants submit that the decision and consent arrangements arising in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 were not, in themselves, legally incorrect. Rather, they contend that those orders do not bind them and do not apply to their asserted customary land interests. On that basis, the Applicants argue that the felling licence granted to the First Respondent, which they say was issued in reliance upon the consent judgment, was improperly granted insofar as it affects lands which they claim were not subject to that settlement. They therefore seek review of the administrative decision to grant the licence without, as initially framed, directly challenging the correctness of the consent judgment itself.
14. 	During oral argument, the Court queried whether the relief sought would necessarily require a finding that the consent arrangements in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 were legally defective, given that the issuance of the felling licence was said to flow directly from those orders. Counsel for the Applicants initially maintained that the consent judgment was not wrong, but simply inapplicable to them and incapable of affecting what they assert to be their customary land. Upon further questioning, however, counsel accepted that any review of the licence decision would inevitably involve scrutiny of the legal foundation provided by the consent judgment and that the consent order would, at least to some extent, have to be found wanting if the grant of the licence were to be impugned on that basis.
15. 	In addition to their challenge to the grant of the felling licence, the Applicants’ case is advanced on the basis that they are representatives of Voda descendants and assert customary ownership over the relevant lands. They say that they participated as objectors in earlier timber rights hearings and that their interests were not adequately recognised in the processes which led to the present logging operations. The Applicants allege that the Deed of Settlement and Consent Judgment arising in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 were entered into without the participation or agreement of all affected customary landholders, and that subsequent administrative steps taken by the Commissioner of Forest relied upon those arrangements without proper regard to their asserted rights.
16. 	The Applicants further contend that irregularities arose following the death of a party in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023, including the filing of a further defence by new legal representatives which they say contradicted earlier pleadings and facilitated the settlement process. On their case, the administrative decision to grant Felling Licence A102209 should therefore be reviewed because it was based upon settlement arrangements that, they say, did not reflect the full range of customary interests or the true ownership position.
Respondents’ Submissions
17. 	The Respondents submit that the present application is procedurally misconceived. They contend that Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 remains on foot before the High Court and that the consent judgment made in that matter has not been set aside. In those circumstances, they argue that any challenge to the validity or effect of the consent orders must be brought by appropriate application within that proceeding, rather than by way of a separate judicial review claim. They submit that the Applicants seek, in substance, to undermine or set aside an existing High Court order indirectly through interlocutory relief, which is impermissible.
18. 	The Respondents further submit that the grant of Felling Licence A102209 flows directly from the consent orders endorsed by the High Court and that the First Respondent’s conduct is therefore authorised by an existing court order. On that basis, they contend that no serious question to be tried arises for the purposes of interlocutory relief and that the balance of convenience favours maintaining the position created by those orders unless and until they are properly set aside by the judge seized of Civil Case No. 391 of 2023.
19. 	In addition, the Respondents submit that issues of customary ownership have already been determined in earlier proceedings and are reflected in the customary land register, which they say stands as prima facie and conclusive evidence of ownership in the absence of challenge. They argue that the Applicants remain parties to Civil Case No. 391 of 2023, that the consent arrangements discontinued only certain claims between particular parties, and that the Applicants cannot simultaneously maintain that the consent judgment is valid while seeking relief which would render it ineffective. It is further submitted that the Applicants failed to disclose relevant matters concerning ownership and prior proceedings, and that full disclosure would demonstrate that interlocutory relief is unnecessary.
Application of Facts to Law
Serious Question to be Tried
20. 	The Applicants advance a challenge which, at its core, questions the legal effect of a consent judgment previously entered in this Court and the administrative steps said to have flowed from it. The Applicants, for their part, submit that the consent judgment in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 is not incorrect, but does not bind them, and that the administrative decisions said to flow from it may therefore be reviewed without setting that order aside.
21. 	On the question of a serious issue to be tried, the Respondents submit that no serious question arises where the conduct complained of is authorised by an existing court order. They say the balance of convenience favours maintaining the position created by the consent orders unless those orders are properly challenged in the originating proceeding. The Respondents distinguish the present application from any broader issues of customary ownership, submitting that ownership has already been determined in earlier proceedings, including High Court Civil Case No. 119 of 2012, and reflected in entries on the customary land register. They contend that the persons who granted timber rights to the First Respondent are registered under the Customary Land framework and that the register constitutes prima facie and, in the absence of challenge, conclusive evidence of ownership. It is further submitted that the Applicants failed to disclose these matters despite being aware of them and that full disclosure would have demonstrated that interlocutory relief is unnecessary.
22. 	The Court accepts that allegations concerning the validity of settlement arrangements and the legality of administrative decisions may, in principle, raise issues capable of determination at trial. At this interlocutory stage, the Court does not decide the ultimate merits.
23. 	However, the present proceeding raises significant procedural complexity. The Applicants seek, in substance, to impugn or undermine orders made in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023, yet those orders remain operative and have not been set aside within that proceeding. The interlocutory relief sought therefore depends upon assumptions about the invalidity or ineffectiveness of existing court orders.
24. 	While that difficulty does not conclusively determine the application, it materially weakens the Applicants’ contention that the interlocutory relief should be granted as a necessary interim measure.
Adequacy of Damages
25. 	The Applicants contend that continued logging activities risk irreversible harm to customary land. The Court accepts that environmental or cultural impacts may not always be readily compensable in monetary terms.
26. 	Conversely, the Respondents rely upon a consent judgment and associated arrangements recognising timber rights and requiring execution of a logging agreement. An order restraining logging at this stage would have significant commercial and contractual consequences, potentially disrupting rights already recognised by court order.
27. 	In circumstances where the factual foundation of the Applicants’ claim remains disputed, the Court is not satisfied that damages would be an inadequate remedy in a manner sufficient to justify the grant of mandatory or prohibitory orders of the breadth sought.
Balance of Convenience
28. 	The balance of convenience must be assessed having regard to the existing legal landscape. The status quo is not a neutral position; it includes the presence of a perfected consent judgment and the ongoing exercise of rights said to arise under that judgment and related administrative decisions.
29. 	Granting the relief sought would effectively suspend the operation or practical effect of arrangements recognised by an earlier order of this Court, without that order having been set aside or varied. The Court must exercise caution before granting interlocutory relief which would, in substance, undermine existing orders or determine contested rights in advance of trial.
30. 	Further, the interlocutory orders sought include mandatory relief requiring removal of machinery and the involvement of police. Such orders go beyond preserving the status quo and would alter the existing state of affairs in a significant and potentially irreversible manner.
31. 	In the Court’s assessment, the practical justice of the case favours maintaining the present position pending proper determination of the Applicants’ claims at trial or through appropriate procedural avenues.
Highlighting Issues
32. 	Without determining the merits, the Court notes several issues which will require careful consideration at a later stage of the proceedings:
a.	whether the present proceeding constitutes a permissible challenge to the consent judgment made in Civil Case No. 391 of 2023, or whether such relief must be sought within that proceeding; and
b.	the extent to which the judicial review claim can properly address matters arising from a High Court consent judgment.
Conclusion
33. 	Applying the principles in American Cyanamid, the Court is not satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated that the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief is appropriate at this stage.
34. 	Although the claim raises arguable issues capable of further examination, the relief sought would substantially alter the existing position created by a consent judgment of this Court and would go beyond preserving the status quo pending trial.
35. 	The balance of convenience therefore favours refusing the interlocutory orders sought.
Orders
1.	The Applicants’ urgent interlocutory application for injunctive relief is refused.
2.	No interim injunction is granted restraining the First Respondent’s activities under Felling Licence A102209.
3.	The status quo created by the existing orders and arrangements arising from Civil Case No. 391 of 2023 is to remain undisturbed pending further order of the Court.
4.	Costs of the interlocutory application are in the cause.
By the Court
Hon. Justice Gina Maree Nott
Puisne Judge